garbage article there which doesn't mention anything about our net spend.

From 87-96 we spent a whopping total of 14.3m net, maybe search a little harder next time.

I don't see how FFP does anything other than cement UTD and Arsenal firmly at the top of the pile and i don't want to see that.

I've no idea how they make PL more competitive so i'm not going to pretend.

we have to remember that right now the PL is right where it wanted to be when it was formed - rolling with cash and able to attract the best young players from across the world. this didn't happen before and would not happen without the money. (i like it)

ldo

I was not trying to say you (or anyone else) couldn't have an opinion on the matter, rather it was ridiculous for one person to discredit someones opinion while at the same time ignoring their reasons for this as they preached/supported someone else's.

btw, I do like your posts on the topic even though I don't really agree with you from time to time.

Wait. Arsenal got boo'd off today? Please tell me this isn't true.

Taking money out of the hands of people with unlimited funds will not curtail their spending, it just curtails the spending of those who do not have unlimited funds.

I understand that, and appreciate your approach. I was just offering that "fact" to underscore that there is no spending requirement as a predicate to having an opinion on a sports club.

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me or my theory. I will be the first to admit that at this stage, it is mostly a theory and I have just worked through the logic of the problem. I don't know to what extent it could be proven.

Originally, I accepted the claim that the big clubs drive the wage bills of the other clubs up. Sounds reasonable, it is intuitive, and is in line with our everyday experiences.

However, just as much in line is the understanding that there can be separate unrelated markets, within a similar industry, even within close geographic proximity. For example, I offered Ferrari's compared to Fiats.

I think the same thing happens in sport: A group of the biggest clubs bid between themselves for each Ferrari. If you are not in this select group, you are not going to bid for the Ferrari, especially since these particular Ferrari's only fit into the driveways of the big club members and can only operate on the streets of their exclusive community.

Now, (aside from other factors driving costs, like materials, labor, etc.) the remaining clubs start bidding for Fiat's not realizing that for most of them, there is an unlimited supply. Yes, there are certain "Special Edition" Fiat's that if used under certain circumstances, can actually manage to operate on the roads and driveways of the exlusive clubs members. Otherwise, most of the Fiat's are of varying quality, but within a much closer range of value than the Ferrari's - as each Ferrari is unique.

It would be unreasonable for those bidding on Fiats to allow the bidding on Ferrari's affect what they are willing to pay. Of course the Fiat dealer will try to trick you by saying that the two markets are related, but they are not, really. Of course, if the Fiat bidders do start scaling their bids in response to the Ferrari bids, then YES, they have just allowed two unrelated markets to be artificially related.

MLB used to do this until the Fiat bidders wised up.

I know. That is not the problem that I seek to address. Also, I don't think that is the problem when it comes to wage inflation.

I am talking about taking the money away from the teams that are hurting themselves with it. City and Chelsea are not part of this equasion (even though, of course, their tv. money would be decreased as well - but to no relative effect on overall spending).

Apparently the Inter boss spoke with the media and said there was an offer made for Sneijder.

the moneybags clubs are the ones that stand to be hurt the most. it will be really interesting when the owners want to sell on and nobody on earth wants to buy. the problem is they will need to go through a process of curtailing spending that will take several years to make them at least in sight of being economically viable. i doubt these owners are ever going to think, "yeah i think i'm going to get tired of this in 4 years, better start working on it now".

Please tell me it is.

Interestingly enough, I read an analysis (didn't save it - trust me, or don't) that stated Man City actually has positioned itself wisely for the new rules in light of the way the timing of certain transfers, etc. are counted. In contrast, the article stated Arsenal played it all wrong as it now has to overhaul and the only part they got right was building a strong youth program - otherwise, they are in deep ****.

The first part of your statement is really right on point. When a player is no longer a Ferrari, lower clubs keep falling for the trick of treating him like one instead of balking and making the big club either eat the contract or keep the player (while still eating the contract).

That is the fundamental flaw in the exchanges between these groups: The big clubs don't mind taking risks and spending big on their players. If it doesn't work, fine - it is much less imperative for them to sell on without taking a big financial hit.

However, the smaller clubs don't think through the problem and they keep taking the bait and provide the big clubs with an enexpected bonus against a loss they were already assuming they would have to take.

im not really sure if you are serious oski

we had more influence on the market by paying bendtner/denilson etc 50k/week than city who bought players like RSC, Lescott, JO, Bridge etc for 20ish mil and 100k/week+, o rly?

When United spent loads of money, they had loads of money. United are an incredibly well supported team and their money comes from their football revenue. People see that as different from a team like Chelsea or City with a very rich owner bankrolling their spending sprees.

Nice, you just choose a random period to pull a figure out while failing completely to prove why it's a garbage article. It also does mention net spend, which proves you didn't even read it.

Not sure why you're getting so precious anyway. Just accept the fact that before Ferguson won his first title he spent an unprecedented amount on players, nearly all clubs have done it, United are no different.

your right, every club that is/has been successful has done the exact same thing. that's why nobody really even noticed and nothing changed when chelsea and city came along and did it, because we have all seen it before.

Only trouble with this analogy is that the big clubs are mostly buying their Ferraris off the smaller clubs. Therefore the Ferrari market and the Fiat market are linked.

I don't know how this affects the overall conclusions, I don't think it is easy to pintpoint who exactly is to blame (I think the format and finances of the CL and Premiership would be a good place to start) but there are not 2 separate markets so each club's spending has an effect on all of the other clubs.

Yeah, very serious.

1. Arsenal does not operate within the same market as City, Chelsea, Real, Barca, Inter, Milan - and a host of others, period. When it comes to getting players of any substantial value (i.e. developed, mature players) Arsenal will not compete for a player's signature within the same market as many, many others. For one, they will not spend to win a bidding competition; two all things being equal, the player will usually choose a team like United. At the end of the day, the only ventures into this realm result in Arsenal getting a player that was either picked over and set in the rummage pile, or someone with hidden value (which can either end up being a polished gem, or a polished turd).

2. So, what City pays its players has little to no impact on those not operating in the "Big Boy" club.

3. I should amend that to say "should" have little to no impact, because as I have pointed out, the Fiat club has a history of bidding on the Ferrari-turned Fiat as if it were still a Ferrari. Self-inflicted wounds.

4. Arsenal is one of the front runners of setting wages for the Fiat club. That is the natural result of them being on the top-tier of the Fiat club. Arsenal may, in fact, acquire its Fiats using different methods than the rest of its Fiat club members, but they are still in the same market as the other Fiat clubs. Therefore, their wage structure is relevant to most of the clubs. The fact their overall wage bill for a team full of Fiats (some more like Yugos and Skodas) and two Fiat-special editions, is close to the top end clubs, demonstrates wasteful spending.

5. And, just like anything else, turds roll from the top to the bottom. So, yeah, Arsenal are turd rollers of the highest order.


Also: Arsenal has done a huge disservice to its fan base as it has voluntarily withdrawn from the Ferrari club, yet tries to pass itself off as a Ferrari club. If a club has the means to join the club, which is in almost all cases a predicate to winning something on the pitch, it is selling the supporters short if it refuses to do it.

So, you are paying to watch F-1, but getting this:

1) Wrong
2) Correct

No way.

In the case you describe the market cross-over is just how it is supposed to be. Obviously, we are arguing about "waste" which implies something wrong with certain transactions.

A big club buying a Ferrari from a small club once its discovered, is a proper transaction. The Ferrari is properly placed into the proper market and the new wages assigned to it, have no bearing on the cost of Fiats.

The problem is in the transaction backwards when a Ferrari club is looking to sell the now-converted Fiat back to the Fiat club. The Ferrari club historically has been able to sell the Fiat for near-Ferrari prices. The Fiat clubs have little to no incentive to engage at those prices because there is really nothing they can gain by adding this particular player at high prices.

In that case, they need to make the Ferrari clubs eat it until the Fiat is sold as a Fiat. In my opinon, the Ferrari clubs is actually willing to do this, but the Fiat clubs **** themselves and don't wait them out.

He implied a hell of a lot more than that by what he didn't say if you see the interview.

I mean you're right with the first part but you're wrong that it matters or makes a difference in this context.

No haven't seen it. What did he do?

so are we just pretending that the fact city have spent 20m+ fees and 100k+ pw wages on average players doesn't matter? i can understand that it is somewhat different when they buy a player like aguero, but RSC? bridge? lescott? players will point to people like this when they are trying to up wages. sure, they won't ask to be on par with them when they are at some other club, but they might at least use it as an excuse to try to squeeze out a few more k pw.

also, players' qualities change. you guys have started this random ferrari/fiat thing which is fine (other than the fact that putting everyone into only 2 groups is obviously going to be somewhat flawed), so what about the ferrari's that depreciate? now they are avg players on huge wages and the problem is much the same as with the players that were just terrible buys in the first place.

that doesnt make too much sense to me

1. Arsenal doesnt operate in the same market as the mid-table teams either, or are you claiming that Nasri, Arshavin, Gervinho etc are mid-table players?

2. wat? they are paying huge amounts for medicore players players, a big reason why downing, carroll etc where so expensive, bolton/everton holding out for such ridic prices for cahill/jagielka is city inflating the market by buying Lescott, Bridge etc for huge sums and giving them huge contracts.

4. how so? do you really think Saha, odemwingie or whoever is like "well bendtner gets 60k/week at arsenal so i want that too!"

arsenal, liverpool etc overpaying medicore players has very little influence on other clubs
it just makes it tough to get rid of said players because the smaller clubs are NOT willing to change their wage structure for players like that

Basically was given 3/4 opportunities to say he was happy at Inter and ducked every single one of them.

Are you happy to stay at Inter? "I'm always happy, i'm a happy guy" while smirking, stuff like that.

Then asked if he was flattered to be linked to a club like United, he smiled and literally backtracked away from the reporters muttering "i'm not" (as in i'm not linked).

I'll be amazed if he's not at Old Trafford come the end of the month.